I am noticing a ton, and by that I mean a metric fuckload (see: generalizations) of editorial content being positioned inside of newer wiki articles. This is troublesome on two levels.

1. Editorial content diffuses the description of material in an article by placing the author's opinion above clear and concise factual data. When we view a wiki page for a game; we're interested in the facts. If we want reviews; there's a link for that.

2. Editorial content is almost always of a negative nature. This leads to an unfair and unnecessary bias toward rhetoric that uses adjectives and adverbs that connote a lack of quality or other deprecatory conversation.

When you pair this with the fact that more recently Wiki submissions are being done for games that aren't even available on the market yet; you end up with an editors nightmare. While there are the usual crop of spelling and grammar issues in new content; the last thing we need is to be forced to decouple editorial content from what could have been factual descriptive material otherwise.

@Branthog: While I certainly understand your point; I'd like to call attention to the fact that anything we might collectively put together, even if we were the smartest people on the planet - would be conjecture. I didn't mean a literal 2x improvement as a basis of fact but rather the idea that the power of the system itself will be at least that much (probably a little bit more depending on who their hardware partners end up being.)

The graphics will be "better" probably should have been what I said; as that's the only accurate way to talk about it. I think it's incredibly likely that the platform as a whole will attempt to focus on the "whole entertainment picture" instead of just games; and that part makes me a little sad.

I also agree that the state of PC gaming is lackluster, but there are still some great experiences to be had on Windows as a platform. (If you knew me, you'd know how much it hurts to admit that fact.) I bought a brand new rig a few months ago so that I'd be able to play some of the newer games coming out this fall unbound. Games like Elder Scrolls just don't belong on a console; even Fallout 3 was a stretch with it's console-focused combat system (fourth wall anyone?)

Rage is a fantastic game, PC gamers know that driver issues happen constantly and it is a fact of gaming-life under Windows. Imagine that you're in charge of a project the scope of Rage; then imagine that you're an intellectual giant. How do you respond to allegations like the one above (not caring about quality, not testing) when you know you put someone on your team in charge of those things?

Update your drivers and play the game, I guarantee you'll enjoy it; and that's all that really matters at the end of the day. While I'm playing Rage I keep finding myself thinking, "Imagine what someone could do with this engine to make an RPG?"

That they will be updating the graphics to be at least 2x of the current platform goes, I think, without saying. The bigger picture here is what they are (or aren't) doing in the sense of home entertainment devices. The recent moves to integrate television services into the XBOX to me indicate a definite move toward the "all-in-one" "convergence device" and Microsoft is definitely one of those companies that thinks it can do digital convergence with their big fat meat fingers.

It will be fun to see them try for it; and if the success of the platform of the 360 is any evidence, they'll get it mostly right. Either way consumers benefit from having more capable hardware to play games on. Microsoft isn't after-all a Nintendo.

Found this video from Luxology interviewing one of the team members on the Rage team. Pretty cool to see in-process footage of games being built; especially one like Rage where the art is really the center piece of the whole endeavor.